Donald Trump, the former leader of the United States, pledged to keep the United States out of a potential Third World War, underlining that such a conflict would threaten an "obliteration" of the world. However, United States President Joe Biden expressed his belief that he is the most suitable candidate among his fellow Democrats. "I think Trump has concluded that he has to win ... And they'll pull out all the stops," Biden said.
What specific actions or policies did Donald Trump take during his presidency to support his claim of keeping America out of World War III? In what ways does President Joe Biden argue that he is the best candidate to defeat Trump, and how does he plan to address any perceived shortcomings in Trump's approach to foreign policy? What roles can both candidates have for America and the importance of countries around the world?
The US-based expert, national security analyst, and lawyer Irina Tsukerman cleared all these questions on Ednews that quite frankly, the threat of World War III phrasing, whenever it's used, is a hyperbolized rhetorical flourish, since we live in an age where wars are no longer the total conflagrations with millions of fighters and civilians engaged in deadly fighting that we have seen during World War I and II:
“Instead, the wars today are hybrid affairs, fought by attrition, skirmishes, and cyberattacks, and far more precise weapons which help avoid mass casualties. While massacres and deadly attacks have not completely been eliminated, the defenses have generally reached a point of limiting the human costs of warfare from millions to thousands. Even more conventional wars supplemented by hybrid elements are generally contained within the same country or bilateral; only occasionally attracting mercenaries and limited forces from elsewhere. None of the deadliest conflicts of the 21st century have risen to the level even approximating the worst conflicts of the 20th century. Nuclear deterrence, too, has worked well since no country, even at the peak of Cold War tensions, has used nuclear weapons since the US used nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”
I. Tsukerman said that Trump is prone to exaggeration in general, so it is no wonder that he blew out of proportion both the nature of the threat and of his own accomplishment:
“However, there are two specific instances where his policies have indeed constrained the possibility of military threat. Specifically, his willingness to sanction NordStream II has kept Russia out of Ukraine during his presidency; and his liquidation of Qassem Soleiman, one of the most important Iranian masterminds of terror, has tied the Islamic Republic's hands decreasing its effectiveness. Similarly, tough sanctions imposed on Iran limited the amount of money available for terrorism and other bellicose regional activity, although it has not fully stopped Iran or its proxies from meddling in regional affairs. Still, Iran has never fully stopped engaging in provocations and has attempted to abduct or assassinate US citizens and residents as revenge for Soleimani's death. But deterrence action has arguably limited possibility of potentially deadly escalations over other provocations such as Iran's maritime threats and attacks on US drones in the Middle East.”
According to her, Biden on the other hand claims that he has been a far more rational and predictable actor who has worked to prevent tensions and outbreaks of violence by reengaging with Iran on the nuclear deal and by providing Ukraine with military aid that Trump is trying to get Republicans to deny it, and thus preventing Russia from gaining permanent access to Ukraine territory and killing even more people than it already has:
“In reality, however, Biden is disingenuous, because Iran's violent activity, and that of its proxies, has spiked after the US removed sanctions under Biden, and Iran is closer than ever to having nuclear weapons which could start a nuclear race in the Middle East. And the war in Ukraine may never have happened to begin with had Biden agreed to arm Ukraine previously, not lifted the sanctions from NordStream II, imposed preemptive sanctions on Russia, and not signaled through statements that he would tolerate a "minor incursion". Given that Putin planned a brief war to replace Zelensky with a puppet regime that is precisely what has greenlighted the invasion. Biden's efforts at diplomatic dealmaking such as trying to tie in the war in Ukraine to an attempted peace deal between Israel and Saudis has thus far proved fruitless with only statements from all sides to account for results.”
American expert thinks that moreover, on Biden's watch conflicts have sprung up all over the world - from various African coups and unresolved civil wars and tensions, such as various confrontations in Ethiopia, and the war in Sudan, to growing tensions in the Balkans which the US is unable to stop, to China's increasingly open military threats to its neighbors:
“Despite Trump's unpredictability, lack of commitment, and an often uninformed personal position towards various foreign policy developments and actors, his administration has been far better at implementing deterrence and preventing violence than Biden even if it acted unilaterally and did not always have smooth coordination with allies. Moreover, the lack of financial and diplomatic follow-through by Biden's administration to various developing countries has resulted in the erasure of goodwill expected from his administration's rhetoric and accelerated ingress by China and Russia into the Global South. Whatever Trump's personal shortcomings, his administration was far better at dealing with immediate global threats on a tactical level.”
She noted that whereas Trump personally is considered an isolationist and Biden is considered to favor engagement, in reality, both administrations lack a long-term strategic vision for the US role in the war and their policies have largely been reactionary to the demands of the day and to their predecessors:
“Trump tried to undo Obama's legacy and pushed for a "better deal" with Iran that would have his name on it; Biden pushed to undo everything Trump implemented by lifting sanctions, initially trying to avoid Abraham Accords, and later by pushing for his own version of Abraham Accords through the "mega-deal" with the Saudis which to anyone with knowledge of the region appears unrealistic in the immediate future. Moreover, Biden's initial mistakes related to Russia have forced his administration to focus on Russian aggression and to shape much of its policy and legacy around the conflict in Ukraine.”
“NATO ended up being strengthened inadvertently but only out of existential necessity. Trump who was not a believer in NATO and who had tried to bully the allies into keeping to their defense commitments ironically ultimately failed in that regard in part as a result of his successes in temporarily deterring the immediate military threats from various actors. However, neither administration is seen as a particularly reliable set of actors, and both share the humiliating disaster of the Afghanistan withdrawal as an ultimate failure of deterrence resulting from isolationism and endless pivots away from counter-extremism and counterterrorism. It is ultimately the combination of both administrations' willingness to bring Taliban to power that despite all other actions - deterrence or willingness to provide military aid to Ukraine, that has empowered rogue and violent actors”,- the lawyer added.
“Despite some major differences, these two administrations are not quite as far apart on foreign policy as they would like to believe. While the US is still being counted upon to lead with respect to major international threats and foreign policy breakthroughs, to restore shattered ties and its own reputation, the US needs new leadership, free of Trumpian or Bidensque ties, that embraces its leading role in the world while learning from past foreign policy mistakes and reforming its domestic institutions to embrace a more long-term, pragmatic, and informed attitude beyond the Washington bubble which ultimately has shaped the failed ideas embraced by both administrations”,- Tsukermen concluded.
Ulviyya Shahin
